Peters v. Darling
Appellate Court of Illinois
Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. Error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Jesse Holdom, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1902. Plaintiffs in error on January 18, 1900, obtained a judgment in assumpsit for $156.72, before a justice, against defendant in error as a copartner of C. F. Foskett, who was not served.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. Error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Jesse Holdom, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1902. Plaintiffs in error on January 18, 1900, obtained a judgment in assumpsit for $156.72, before a justice, against defendant in error as a copartner of C. F. Foskett, who was not served. C. F. Foskett & Co. had been engaged in the drug business in Chicago prior to and until November L4, 1894, when the firm executed a deed of voluntary assi-mment. The estate was closed in April, 1896. The claim of plaintiffs in error was that…
1Opinion of the Court
Mb. Presiding Justice Ball
delivered the opinion of the court.
Neither the abstract nor the bill of exceptions shows any exception to the action of Judge Kavanaugh in overruling the motion to quash the writ of certiorari. Hence the propriety of the order then entered is not before us upon this writ of error. A part}7, to avail himself of an exception to a decision of the Circuit Court, must take an exception at the time the decision is made, and the bill of exceptions must affirmatively show that it was taken at that time. E. St. Louis E. Ry. Co. v. Stout, 150 Ill. 9. It is true the common law…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Randolph County v. RallsIllinois Supreme Court · 1856
- East St. Louis Electric Railway Co. v. StoutIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Mitchell v. JacobsIllinois Supreme Court · 1855
- Thompson v. WhiteIllinois Supreme Court · 1872
- Hatterman v. ThompsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1899
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.